1. X 12M

2. Nationwide, we produce 4M tons of solid waste a year. 3. Studies on KAP on solid waste management are very relevant as SWM is being urgently addressed by many cities and municipalities in the country in compliance with RA 9003. -Tatlonghari and Jamias, 2010 4. Correlation of Knowledge and Attitudes with the Reported Practices on the Solid Waste Management of Selected Households in Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City Pacariem Sandoval SLCM 2016 Adviser: Dr. Carolina Linda Tapia Preventive Medicine II AY 2011-2012 5. Definitions 6. Solid Waste Management (SWM) 7. Household 8. Household Waste 9. Household Waste Manager (HWM) 10. Segregating Recycling/Reusing Dumping 11. Burning 12. Knowledge 13. Attitudes 14. Practices 15. Is there a correlation? 16. Framework Objectives Hypotheses 17. Practice AttitudesKnowledge Sociodemographics Age Sex Educational Attainment Household size Figure 1. Theoretical framework for the correlation of KA and P of Old Balara households, QC. 18. K A P The study objectives revolved around 3 variables. 19. H0 No correlation H1 A positive correlation 20. Methodology Design Statistics Population Sampling Biases 21. Methodology Design Statistics 22. Sampling Method Study Approach Analytic Cross-Sectional Systematic Random 23. Data Processing Data Analysis Data Collection Questionnaire Structured Interview Checked Encoded SPSS 16 24. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient of Determination Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression 25. n=( z+z 1r 2 r ) 2 +2 = 0.05 = 0.20 r = 0.214 (Tatlonghari et al., 2010) n = 159 26. Methodology Population Sampling Biases 27. Old Balara Households Target Population Accessible Population Old Balara 28. Random Start Systematic: Every other Household 29. Inclusion CriteriaOld Balara Households HWM is present resident for > 6 months social desirability < 8 30. K A P Domains General (7) Segregation (5) Recycling (9) Dumping (3) Burning (2) Sub Domains (9) (5) (4) (3) (4) N/A (3) (3) (2) (-3 to 0) 31. General (1) Segregation (1) Recycling (1) Dumping (1) Burning (1) K (26) = Total = 5 32. General (1) Segregation (1) Recycling (1) Dumping (1) Burning (1) K (26) With 1 point for each subdomain, there is a total K score of 5 or 19%. 33. BIAS CONTROLS Refusal Full information Respectful persuasion Recall Choices Defining time frames Interviewer Standardization Rehearsal Social Desirability 10 item SD pre-test Table 1. List of biases and their corresponding controls 34. Results 35. Table 2. Summary of sociodemographics. 36. 78% are women 37. 49% of them are middle aged (40-65) 38. Only 58% finished high school 39. and 59% are unemployed 40. 42% of families live in households of either 4 or 5 41. Only 42% earn at least P10,000 a month for the entire household. 42. Results Practice 43. Figure 2: Histogram of total practice scores. 44. 18.6 10.2 24 46.7 Never Sometimes Often Always Figure 3: Distribution of segregation percentages Only 46.7% reportedly segregate 4-7 times a week. 45. 42.5 26.3 14.4 15.6 Never Sometimes Often Always Figure 4: Distribution of reusing and recycling percentages 42.5% reported to have never reused or recycled. 46. 91.6 5.4 3 0.6 Never Sometimes Often Always Figure 5: Distribution of open burning percentages 91.6% reported to have never practiced open burning 47. 90.4 9.6 Designated Undesignated Figure 6: Distribution of dumping percentages at designated and undesignated sites 90.4% reported dumping in designated sites 48. 17 68 66 Sometimes Often Always Figure 7: Distribution of dumping percentages by frequency 68% reported dumping often, while 66% reported dumping always 49. Results Knowledge 50. Table 3: Descriptive statistics of scores in the knowledge subdomains Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 TOTAL KNOWLEDGE 26 19.35 74.42 51. The respondents were scored separately for each subdomain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 TOTAL KNOWLEDGE 26 19.35 74.42 52. Respondents scored highest in the dumping subdomain, followed by recycling and burning. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 1 2 3 53. Respondents scored lowest in segregating. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 TOTAL KNOWLEDGE 26 19.35 74.42 54. As a whole, the respondents scored 74.42% in the knowledge domain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 TOTAL KNOWLEDGE 26 19.35 74.42 55. Results Attitudes 56. Table 4: Descriptive statistics of scores in the attitude subdomains Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00 57. The respondents were scored separately for each subdomain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00 58. The respondents scored highest in the recycling subdomain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00 1 2 3 59. The respondents scored lowest in general SWM attitudes. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00 60. As a whole, the respondents scored 74% in the attitude domain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00 61. Results Correlations 62. K A P 63. K P 64. Total Domain Scores K A P Total Knowledge Scores 1 0.106 0.272* (r2 = 0.074) Table 5: Spearman rank correlation matrix of mean total SWM scores 65. Table 6: Spearman rank correlation matrix of various mean knowledge subdomain scores. Subdomain K with A K with P Segregation 0.179* (r2 = 0.0340) 0.103 Recycling -0.014 0.106 Dumping 0.074 -0.055 Burning -0.159* (r2 = 0.0253) -0.38 66. Table 6: Spearman rank correlation matrix of various mean knowledge subdomain scores. Subdomain K with A K with P Segregation 0.179* (r2 = 0.0340) 0.103 Recycling -0.014 0.106 Dumping 0.074 -0.055 Burning -0.159* (r2 = 0.0253) -0.38 67. A P-0.156 (r2 = 0.0243) Burning 68. Practice AttitudesKnowledge Sociodemographics Age Sex Educational Attainment Household size 69. Discussion 70. Multiple independent garbage collectors Collection days are segregated No segregation, no collection 71. Some households pay children NGOs 72. Table 7: Comparison of sociodemographic data with other studies Parameter Group 6, 2012 Tatlonghari et al., 2010 Sumayao et al., [n.d] Gender F > M Age 40-65 Family Income (Peso) > 10,000 Occupation Unemployed Educational Attainment High School Household Size 4-5 73. Table 8: Comparison of correlation coefficients with another study Parameter Group 6, 2012 Tatlonghari et al., 2010 Correlation of K with P r= 0.272 (r2 =0.074) r=0.214 (r2 =0.046) Correct K Correct P Favorable A Correct P Segregation and Recycling = 74. Correct attitudes towards open burning prevent its practice. 75. Possessing correct knowledge does not necessarily translate into practice. Information is insufficient. 76. In segregation, K A In burning, K inversely with A 77. Income Education None with K, A Age none with segregation practice 78. What we are: Pioneering study Baseline data What we can do: Plan Strategize Invest in knowledge How we can do: Information drives Incentives 79. Knowledge is still power. Mobilize the community. K and A are not the only ones. SWM is multifactorial 80. Questionnaire Standardize KAPs Reported vs. Actual Limited to KAPs 81. Knowledge is still power. Mobilize the community. K and A are not the only ones. SWM is multifactorialQuestions? 82. References